Restored Honus Wagner at SCP Auctions

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

It is my feeling that an item should always sell for one bid more than the second most interested party is willing to pay. I find anything that interferes with that anathema to the auction process.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

It is my feeling that an item should always sell for one bid more than the second most interested party is willing to pay. I find anything that interferes with that anathema to the auction process.

This to me is the classic definition of market value, and I wholeheartedly agree that a realized price reflecting only one bid above a house bid or reserve price is not indicative of true market value. When the realized hammer price is the stated reserve (i.e., the item actually sells), at least in that instance the market has been put on notice what has taken place. That stands in contrast to a bid above a hidden reserve, which, even though stated in the rules as allowed to take place, is more deceptive.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

This to me is the classic definition of market value, and I wholeheartedly agree that a realized price reflecting only one bid above a house bid or reserve price is not indicative of true market value. When the realized hammer price is the stated reserve (i.e., the item actually sells), at least in that instance the market has been put on notice what has taken place. That stands in contrast to a bid above a hidden reserve, which, even though stated in the rules as allowed to take place, is more deceptive.

The price that an item sells for in a given auction on a given day is simply that - the price it sells/sold for in that auction. The assumption that this translates to "fair market value" completely ignores the gross inefficiencies in the market place! For it to be a true "fair market value" we would need to be certain that all willing sellers were meeting all willing buyers in the marketplace to properly see supply and demand at work. Our marketplace is not close to efficient. Add to that the fact that all 8's are not created equal and we have a huge mess. That said, I do think there is value in using a selling price be it auction or private (all of which sales are excluded from the publicly available information) as a relevant piece of information in helping to estimate a fair market value. The more data points you have will help get you closer to a more accurate "fair market value"

Onto reserves - as a result of the very same inefficiencies discussed above, auction houses who have a fiduciary duty to their consignors (NOT their bidders) sometimes agree to place reserves on items. Reserves are a double edged sword - bidders frequently shy away from items they see reserves on and don't bid on items they might actually have won if they did - so some houses choose to "hide" them. Consignors of certain items understandably are concerned that their item may not be seen by all potentially interested buyers of an item and sell below "fair market value" so request reserves. I don't see a simple solution where everyone is happy. I do agree it is poor practice for an auction house to be placing bids against legit bidders up to a hidden reserve price.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by hcv123

The price that an item sells for in a given auction on a given day is simply that - the price it sells/sold for in that auction. The assumption that this translates to "fair market value" completely ignores the gross inefficiencies in the market place! For it to be a true "fair market value" we would need to be certain that all willing sellers were meeting all willing buyers in the marketplace to properly see supply and demand at work. Our marketplace is not close to efficient. Add to that the fact that all 8's are not created equal and we have a huge mess. That said, I do think there is value in using a selling price be it auction or private (all of which sales are excluded from the publicly available information) as a relevant piece of information in helping to estimate a fair market value. The more data points you have will help get you closer to a more accurate "fair market value"

Onto reserves - as a result of the very same inefficiencies discussed above, auction houses who have a fiduciary duty to their consignors (NOT their bidders) sometimes agree to place reserves on items. Reserves are a double edged sword - bidders frequently shy away from items they see reserves on and don't bid on items they might actually have won if they did - so some houses choose to "hide" them. Consignors of certain items understandably are concerned that their item may not be seen by all potentially interested buyers of an item and sell below "fair market value" so request reserves. I don't see a simple solution where everyone is happy. I do agree it is poor practice for an auction house to be placing bids against legit bidders up to a hidden reserve price.

Well said.

[Fred]

What if...

Would it be considered a market price manipulation IF:

The Wags card didn't sell (meet the reserve) and the house was bidding on the card to move it towards the reserve and the house didn't disclose the card did not meet the reserve price (therefore did not actually sell)?

[MattyC]

Good Lord that 7 from SCP is really mesmerizing— as someone said it is perhaps the best example of buying the holder in recent memory. I will add my lowly garbage PSA 4 to the list of examples for comparison. The investors out there who only want 7s and up are free to look down their noses at this one... This was actually an SGC 4.5 that I crossed like a moron due to my desire for uniformity in my collection. Should have stayed a 4.5, yet why let the merits of the card get in the way of good ole inter-company politics

[chriskim]

If that Ruth PSA 7 was on Heritage auction, it would have been looked a lot better with the team of photoshop experts they have. Those people can make ceases on the card disappear, in this Ruth case, enhancing the contrast/brightness and coloring should be a piece of cake.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Good Lord that 7 from SCP is really mesmerizing— as someone said it is perhaps the best example of buying the holder in recent memory. I will add my lowly garbage PSA 4 to the list of examples for comparison. The investors out there who only want 7s and up are free to look down their noses at this one... This was actually an SGC 4.5 that I crossed like a moron due to my desire for uniformity in my collection. Should have stayed a 4.5, yet why let the merits of the card get in the way of good ole inter-company politics

Putting aside the issue of (IMO) the utter inability of TPG to detect alterations, what is perhaps sadder is the criteria used to arrive at a grade. Wasn't the whole idea behind TPG to establish an unbiased rating system that reflects how a typical collector would view a card's condition? It would seem to me that paramount among the relevant criteria used to rate the card would be how the card looks. Yet that doesn't seem to matter much at all, which is incredible. Yes, I get it that attempting to rate something based on a subjective criteria such as aesthetic appeal interjects subjectivity into the process. But how can one say subjectivity is not already integral to the process? At the end of day a number appears on the flip, which is supposed to reflect the sum total of all various criteria used to evaluate a card's condition. But when the result is what the current system often churns out -- a much higher grade for the card with the much lower aesthetic appeal, card registry or not, the system is wacko.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Fred

What if...

Would it be considered a market price manipulation IF:

The Wags card didn't sell (meet the reserve) and the house was bidding on the card to move it towards the reserve and the house didn't disclose the card did not meet the reserve price (therefore did not actually sell)?

Yes